1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 12, 2014 to March 30, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 16, 2005, the Plaintiff completed a marriage report with C on December 16, 2005, and has two children among them.

B. The Defendant was aware of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the high school, and that the Plaintiff and C are married couple through the marriage of the married couple.

C. From around 2010 to April 2014, the Defendant maintained inappropriate relations, such as continuing to meet with the above C, and engaging in a sexual intercourse. The Defendant was pregnant with C, but was born.

On the other hand, the defendant's husband D brought a lawsuit of divorce and consolation money against the defendant and C, and the above D was divorced from the defendant, and forced conciliation was conducted to pay 20 million won in the name of consolation money from C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant committed an improper act while maintaining an inappropriate relationship with C, knowing that C is the father-son of his spouse, and this constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, who is a spouse under the law of C.

Since the plaintiff is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental pain due to the above tort, the defendant is obligated to do so in monetaryly to the plaintiff.

B. Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable for compensation, the amount shall be determined at KRW 25 million in consideration of the health team, the marriage period and family relationship of the Plaintiff and C, the contents and circumstances of fraudulent act, the period, the influence of the above fraudulent act on marriage, the relationship with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

C. Therefore, as the Defendant seeks from September 12, 2014, the following day after the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff seeks, to the Plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the obligation.